Labelling mental illness

Scientific advances such as scanners that see into the brain and powerful mind-altering drugs make it tempting to give a diagnosis to things society terms "mental illnesses".

But we should resist from using psychiatric labels because there is no clear division between madness and sanity, experts argue.

To label someone as schizophrenic, for example, falsely groups people with a wide range of problems together.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4208974.stm

What are your views on this matter and do you feel labelled?

These kinds of reactions within society make me feel ashamed to admit being SA and even more paranoid. I feel that society doesn't understand me, it just reacts to mental illness as if I'm some freak.



What about you?

JulieKC

That is interesting... and not fair either. I was just thinking about it last night: and how unfair it is. I was talking to my best friend last night, and for some reason I said "Isn't it weird that I have something that can be considered a mental illness?" She said, "It makes it sound like I shouldn't be your friend." That really made me think...it does sound like that. Even I would be wary of someone who supposedly has a mental illness, and then there I am, walking around too.

I love you Julie!!

...I could probably write an essay to you on this, but it is gettin late here (in Australia -oops I'm in SA-UK)

But I have long believed that some experts and people in general judge others based too much on their own perspective -with its own limits for what is acceptable. And that many people simply do not have the wisdom and clarity of perception to truly see others correctly. I believe that this is simply a characteristic of human nature. But having been exposed to more and more theories on anxiety, I am seeing how some people seem to comprehend the problem without making a person with it feel damaged or full-of-faults, whilst others do not.

One example of people's perceptions judging poorly that I can think of is Sigmund Freud's theory of 'Penis Envy'. By which the very words he uses denotes that such women suffer from the envy of sexual power that men supposedly have. He stipulated that both women who engage in 'too much sex' and 'too little sex' are sufferring from such a condition. .....it is no wonder that he incited rage from feminists -his employment of the word 'envy' is all about women wanting power; and yet the simple observation of survival reveals that a person concerned with the gain of power is equally concerned with the prevention of losing power. ....In my humble opinion, because Freud views others through the lens of his own eyes (values, perception) his primary attention is on gaining power -or, if you like, more focussed upon the conquest. He completely ignores women who simply stave off sex for fear of losing their status, ie: their power.

And just as a Medical Book dating back a few decades will list the disease: "Promiscuity ......in Women and How to Cure it" (-!!!!!-) it is clear that not only do people evolve in their sense of what is 'normal' and 'abnormal', but that much of what people divide into one or the other is determined by their own personal outlook.

I prefer Jung to Freud. Where Jung talks of the feminine and masculine exiting within every individual and seems more balanced in his ability to see different view-points.

And in a way, all shy, sensitive types are like the 'feminine' side to people, where even the great psychiatrist himself, Sigmund Freud represses such a side, more quickly labelling it as 'wrong', because already 'femininity' is repressed within most peoples' minds. They have a view of what is 'normal' and 'right' based upon a smaller scope for diversity. So, as soon as any more extreme degree of diversity arises, the 'feminine' (non-dominant) form of this is labelled as 'abnormal' in an effort to bring back order to the newly emerging chaos. But this chaos is simply evolution. As is shown by how society changes in its ideas of 'normal', expanding its understanding of people to find a more inclusive way of bringing order to the chaos. ...like believing that 'shadows only mean that a light is near'; or finding the solution is like finding the light at the centre of darkness.

Note that whilst promiscuity may stil not be considered the ideal, or normal, that there is a greater ability to accept this aspect of all people as having its own 'normal' core at the centre of its darkness. And with it, it is less 'abnormal' for women to be easy going sexually along with this being true for men. (Although whether we've really progressed that far is another discussion). ...it's a great argument for 'what you do to others is done unto you', or like Jung's observation that demonising others means that the unwanted, and as yet not dealt with, aspects of the subbconcious are popping up, causing a person to divide the world into 'right' and 'wrong', 'sane' and 'insane'. ...but in the light of this interpretation of sanity and insanity, what truly is sane?

Cheers and thanks for supporting the oppressed minority!! :lol: :wink:


(NOTE: I use the term 'feminine' in the sense that the feminine is simply the non-dominant side of the masculine, for example... feminine= introverted, sensitive, wanting close emotional bonds, masculine=extroverted, insensitive, sex for pleasure)

Worrydoll,
I get what you are saying. That it is just as bad to say that what we are going through is 'easy' and that we are therfore pathetic for experiencing dificulty. Really, your point is the other side of the coin.

It's like how there are 2 kinds of prejudice. For example, calling a black person a 'nigger' is obviously discrimination (even though some rap artists use it in their songs -goes to show how we all attach different meaning to the words we use) and yet, going out of one's way to not identify a black person as having any difference (to a white person) is really just a disguised form of prejudice. Since, why should it be wrong to identify a true and real difference -unless of course an individual within their own mind holds a sense that being black is of lower status. ...In other words, making too big an issue of difference one way or another is just as bad. And I suppose, depending on where one is at, a person would find one form of discrimination (more) offensive than the other.

And that last point is important; since people will be on different ends of the scale. I notice that some don't get offended by labels used in psychiatry, whilst other people find these too harsh and innapropriate. ...why this is exactly I am still puzzling over.

So it's a fine balance. A person needs to believe that their problem is big enough to warrant their difficulty, and yet also believe that it is manageable. So it definetly is a very fine balance, because too much one way or the other makes a person feel weighted down and halts their progress.

I am glad you brought up this subject because I feel that labelling or diagnosing a person can be counterproductive. I do feel that it groups people into one category that really have very different experiences and symptoms. I do think a general diagnosis can be helpful to guide treatment, but a therapist should always be flexible actually try to obtain as much information as possible about what underlies that behaviors and symptoms of the client.

I think labelling people is largely to blame for the failure of therapy. So many people see someone on a regular basis, but leave not feeling much better. Maybe clients can sense that they are being labelled and thus are being given blanket advice.

We live in an age where it seems that 'labelling' is the best way to treat people. Well it isn't. Everyone knows that everyone is individual and quite different. To think, oh this person is finding it difficult to liove in society - they are mentally ill, therefore beyond help - well it's not a nice thought!

My personal view is that society on a whole wants to shut itself off from mental illness, and pretend it doesn't exist. Tbh I never considered myself to have mental illness until recently, and even then it sounds odd, because I function pretty normally and I don't think other people would know.

In many ways I hate it that people who have no idea about what we suffer from, think we are lesser in some way, not as capable? Survival of the fittest and all that. Do we really still live in a society that thinks, those that have difficulties should be pushed to one side and forgotten?

Unfortunately society values today force people to assume, judge and put (quite often unecessary) labels on people. In my view people to seem far too willing to very quickly judge and make an immediate assumption based on very little real evidence. I fear that society is becoming muddled in its attitudes and views towards all types of people. In an ideal world we would all tolerate one another and value each others differences. However, most humans are unable to do this, and certain individuals will also find it difficult to tolerate certain types of people and may even revel in labelling and finding vulnerabilities in people with they can pounce on. This non-judgemental attitude of mne makes people assume that I am religious because religious people are seen as non-jugemental. However I am not, I just wish that the world could be a peaceful, accepting and co-operative place. If we were all the same we would be walking around like robotic clones of each other and that would make for a very odd world.

In the case of mental illness issues I think many people fear it because they lack understanding. A past job I had required me to do two days training about vulnerable groups in society and I was astonished at the lack of understanding and quite bigoted views of my fellow employees towards mental illness. They showed themselves to be very shallow and not open minded atall.

I'm scared for the attitude of this world regards everything really......

Hi jinxed I agree with most of what youre saying The world has become a confused place with reference to how people are judged and assumed to be because of all of the things that the media forces at us. In my grandparents day there wasnt so much emphasis on analytical values they told me, because they just had what was immediately presented around them and I think if we were void of media influences for a while that could be a refreshing change. When I said that I wasn't religious I don't know why this is, but I very much respect that you feel God may help people in some way. I think it's very important to respect other peoples opinions, values and ideas and try to understand various aspects of everything that people belive in. IN the case of mental illness I think the main thing is the stigma that surrounds it and lack of understanding from people. I find that I'm far more accepted for being gay than for being quiet,shy etc which is what I meant earlier about confusion. Why is that acceptable but not the quietness, etc etc?? It sounds silly but because of how I'm appreciating peoples problems more and more and having such an open mind compared to when I was younger (now 31), I'm inclined to try and help people and have even considered counsellor training but dont know if I'll ever go ahead with it. Do you think thats because of my experiences??